| 1 |
Cloud services are often far more expensive, I work with someone who did a |
| 2 |
fair amount of research of the various costs of clouds. They are good for |
| 3 |
dynamic scaling of resources but if your concentrating on one server or |
| 4 |
another its likely your server load isn't highly intensive and a single |
| 5 |
dedicated server could handle it. Also, there are the options of cheaper |
| 6 |
webhosting, or a VPS, as a true dedicated server can be quite expensive due |
| 7 |
to the cost of rackspace. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
In terms of availability, it simply depends on replication and the |
| 10 |
reliability of the data site. with a standard cloud server there is likely |
| 11 |
not replication across sites and so the availability is determined by |
| 12 |
availability of the data center. Dedicated servers dont have multi site |
| 13 |
replication (unless you do it yourself), however many provide far better |
| 14 |
uptime SLAs than a cloud provider. |
| 15 |
For example, Amazon EC2 SLA guaruntees 99.95% uptime. whereas dedicated |
| 16 |
servers or VPSs can generally offer between 99,99% and 99.9999% (depending |
| 17 |
on who it is). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-Kevin Brandstatter |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net>wrote: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Am 14.12.2012 11:00, schrieb Grant: |
| 26 |
> >> > Would everyone here be in favor of a dedicated server over a cloud |
| 27 |
> >> > server from a host with good cloud infrastructure? The cloud server |
| 28 |
> >> > concept is amazing but from what I'm reading a dedicated server at the |
| 29 |
> >> > same price point far outperforms it. |
| 30 |
> >> > |
| 31 |
> >> > - Grant |
| 32 |
> >> |
| 33 |
> >> Last time I did the calculation, a dedicated or normal virtualized |
| 34 |
> >> infrastructure was more cost effective as long as you could accurately |
| 35 |
> >> predict the performance you need. |
| 36 |
> >> |
| 37 |
> >> Cloud services only really help if you need a high dynamic range |
| 38 |
> >> regarding scale and performance, e.g. a service that could get a lot of |
| 39 |
> >> new users very fast or is only really active for short time spans. |
| 40 |
> > |
| 41 |
> > Doesn't a good cloud server also have potentially higher availability |
| 42 |
> > compared to dedicated? |
| 43 |
> > |
| 44 |
> > - Grant |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> I'd be grateful if anyone can point me at a well conducted study on that |
| 47 |
> topic. Until then I just say that my anecdotal evidence shows the |
| 48 |
> opposite: My cheap-ass virtual server has an uptime of 492 days with |
| 49 |
> only minor, previously announced network outages. During the same time, |
| 50 |
> Amazon EC2 had what, 3 or 4 major outages? |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> Regards, |
| 53 |
> Florian Philipp |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> |
Archives